1. Of the instant lawsuit, Gwangju District Court Decision 2007j. 125 against the Defendant’s Plaintiff (Seoul District Court Decision 2007j. 125).

1. There is no benefit to seek non-permission of the compulsory execution by an action of demurrer, after the compulsory execution based on the executive titles with the partial rejection of the action has been completed as a whole, and the creditor has satisfied; and

The lawsuit shall be dismissed with respect to the part on which the compulsory execution based on the executive title has already been terminated, and the propriety of the claim on the merits shall be examined and determined only with respect to the part on which

(2) In light of the purport of the argument in the evidence No. 1 and No. 1 and No. 42043, May 29, 2014 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da82043, May 29, 2014). In full view of the purport of the argument as indicated in the evidence No. 1 and No. 2, the Defendant applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff and Nonparty D, jointly and severally with Gwangju District Court Decision 2007Hu125, Apr. 5, 2007, ordering the payment of loans and delay damages amounting to KRW 21 million, and the payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”). The Defendant had received a claim for compulsory execution on March 13, 2013 under the instant payment order and assignment order (the claimed amount of KRW 4 million) and received it from the Plaintiff and Nonparty D, and thus, the Defendant had no interest in the claim for compulsory execution as to each of the above KRW 4 million.

Therefore, this part of the lawsuit is unlawful.

2. Unlike Article 44(2) of the Civil Execution Act, Article 58(3) of the Civil Execution Act, which limits the grounds for objection to the judgment on the remainder of a final judgment to be arising after the pleadings have been closed (in the case of a judgment without holding any pleadings, after the judgment was pronounced), provides that the above Article 44(2) does not apply to the assertion of objection to the claim against the payment order. Thus, the grounds for failure, invalidation, etc. of the claim arising prior to the issuance of the payment order may be asserted in the lawsuit of objection against the payment order.